Last month, Michael Ray Hanline was freed by a Ventura County Superior Court judge after serving 36 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Hanline had been wrongfully convicted in 1980 of the first-degree murder of biker J.T. McGarry.

In addition to new DNA evidence establishing his innocence, Hanline’s lawyers uncovered police reports that cast substantial doubt on the testimony of the prosecution’s star witness. These reports had never been shared with the defense.

The failure of prosecutors to share favorable information is a common factor in the conviction of innocent people. Hanline’s case is a stark example.

The frequency with which prosecutors withhold favorable information and their lack of accountability is highlighted by the recently published report “Material Indifference.” The report documents the significant role of the courts in fostering this all-too-common practice.

The study, conducted by Santa Clara University School of Law’s Veritas Initiative and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, documents 210 federal court decisions where prosecutors withheld favorable information or disclosed it late. In 90 percent of the cases, courts excused the prosecutors, finding the information was not materially important or the late disclosure did not prejudice the defendant.

This is the reality despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Brady v. Maryland requiring prosecutors to turn over favorable evidence that is material to the case. As seen from the study and from cases in the news, some prosecutors are failing to comply.

One notable example is the case of late Sen. Ted Stevens. In 2008, Stevens was convicted in a very public federal corruption case. Stevens’ prosecution was permeated with Brady violations that remained hidden for years. Sadly, the senator died before his name was cleared.

Responding to the gross injustice in the Stevens case, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski introduced the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act of 2012. The act would have required prosecutors to disclose all information “that may reasonably appear favorable to the defendant.”

Unfortunately, the 2012 bill did not pass. Last week, following the release of the “Material Indifference” report, Murkowski announced that she would reintroduce the bill in the next congressional session.

As seen in the Hanline and Stevens cases, prosecutors persist in withholding favorable information. Ninth U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said, “There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land, which only judges can put a stop to.”

He is right. Judges can act in individual cases, and the California Supreme Court can ensure the adoption of American Bar Association Model Rule 3.8(d), which explicitly requires that prosecutors “make timely disclosure of all favorable information that tends to negate guilt.”

California is the only state in the union that has failed to adopt this rule.

Congress can also take an important step by enacting the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act when it is reintroduced by Murkowski in the next congressional session. As Murkowski said, “We can no longer allow the government to have a finger on the scales of justice, tipping it in its favor.”

Kathleen Ridolfi is a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and director of the Veritas Initiative. Todd Fries is a pro bono research attorney at the Veritas Initiative and operations director at the Northern California Innocence Project. They wrote this for this newspaper.